2019 Legislative Elections: Free but Unfair?

Among things that need to be evaluated in every election is whether it was carried out fairly.

Evaluation needs to be carried out because free and fair competition among election participants is one of the parameters of democratic elections. Was competition among political parties participating in the 2019 elections fair?

In general, there seems to be a consensus among election observers that competition among political parties participating in the 2019 elections had been free.

Every party was able to campaign in all electoral districts without obstacles. Competition can be categorized as fair if it meets at least four conditions. Because of limited space, only two of the four conditions will be stated here. First, does the election law guarantee that every registered voter can exercise their right to vote, including registered voters with special needs?

Does every political party have the same opportunity to be an election participant (or vice versa the requirements to be an election participant can only be met by some parties); are the provisions regarding revenue, expenditure and accountability of election campaign funds apply equally and are enforced equally for each election participant; and does the mass media cover all election participants and present reports on election activities objectively (factually).

KOMPAS/PRIYOMBODO

Flags of political parties participating in the 2019 general election filled the outskirts of the overpass in the Senayan area, Central Jakarta, on Friday (5/4/2019).

Several notes

The election law guarantees the four things. However, there are a number of notes that should be mentioned as evaluation materials for the 2019 elections.

First, not all registered voters with special needs were served either by the law or the General Elections Commission (KPU), such as voters who were receiving treatment at various hospitals and voters who had to travel on polling day.

Second, the provisions regarding the revenue, expenditure and accountability of election campaign funds did not only apply to all election participants but also were not enforced on all election participants.

Third, the mass media reported on all election participants, but they covered and reported more about the presidential and vice presidential elections than the legislative elections.

Based on the Constitutional Court\'s ruling, all parties that have seats at the DPR must also undergo verification of compliance by the KPU.

Based on the Constitutional Court\'s ruling, all parties that have seats at the DPR must also undergo verification of compliance by the KPU.

Second, did all parties have the same competitive opportunity to influence voters? In many democracies, democratic competition is more harmed not by repression or manipulation of the results of vote counting, but by access to resources, mass media, and state institutions.

Same opportunities

The opportunity to compete for seats in all electoral districts is guaranteed for all election participants. What is not guaranteed is the means to use this same opportunities. Sixteen parties nationally do not have the means to get the same opportunities.

Four parties for the first time entered the competition arena in each electoral district, while 12 parties have participated in one or more election. People who have already entered the competition arena are certainly more experienced than those who first entered the arena.

Both parties had the means to convey a bigger message to voters.

The old parties have more and more experienced cadres than the new P4s. A number of old P4s have held legislative and executive positions so that they can indirectly use their positions to influence voters. Two parties (NasDem Party and Perindo Party) were also led by entrepreneurs who owned print and electronic media so that the coverage and reporting of the two parties was significantly more than the coverage and reporting of the other 14 parties. Both parties had the means to convey a bigger message to voters.

Recognizing the situation of facilities using unequal opportunities among P4s, Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning Elections instructs the KPU [an Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu)] to facilitate each election participant in four instruments to use the same opportunities.

First, the KPU is obliged to provide a copy of the final voter lists (DPT) in the form of software copies or solid discs in a format that cannot be changed at the party management representatives at the regency/city and district level (Article 208). This facilitation is required so that each P4 can ascertain whether there are Indonesian citizens who are eligible to vote experience discrimination in voter registration.

Paraphernalia

Second, the KPU facilitates the installation of paraphernalia for every election participant in public places. Third, the KPU facilitates the election campaign advertisements of every election participant in the print mass media, electronic mass media, and the internet. The second and third facilitation, which is ordered by Article 275 Paragraph (2), is highly needed so that each P4 can convey the election message to all voters.

Fourth, Bawaslu facilitates witnesses for each participant in the form of training (Article 351 Paragraph (8). This witness training is needed so that each P4 through witnesses can submit objections (corrections) if there are actions of the Organizing Committee/Election Organizer that deviate from the procedures for the collection and calculation processes of the votes.

Thus, the facilities provided by the KPU and Bawaslu (by order of the election law) are intended so that each election participant cannot only convey a message to voters, but also the ability to correct if there are deviation on election stages.

Two observations can be made of these four facilities.

The questionable factor is whether the facilities of the KPU are able to contribute to efforts to ensure fair competition among P4s? Two observations can be made of these four facilities.

First, were copies of the DPT in the form of solid discs used by each P4 to ensure all citizens who were eligible to vote were registered in the DPT? From the media reports it can be concluded that only the campaign team of candidate pair 02 submitted the results of the assessment of the DPT given by the KPU, but the assessment only concluded that the KPU\'s DPT had not been fully updated (the deceased persons were still recorded in the DPT) and was not fully accurate (those who were eligible to vote still were recorded in DPT).

There was no P4 that submitted an assessment of the DPT. Besides that, did all election participants maximally utilize the witness training program provided by Bawaslu, was a question that must be sought for answers. The most important thing to disclose was the second note, namely the second facilitation (installation of paraphernalia in public places) and third (installation of election campaign advertisements in print and electronic media) given by the KPU to all P4s, which could be concluded as misdirected. One of the targets is because competition in the open candidate-centered electoral system that has been applied since the 2009 elections no longer took place among P4s.

Competition among candidates

Competition that occurred in a proportional electoral system that proposed candidates no longer took place among P4s, but among candidates from the same party and in the same electoral area and among candidates from different P4s in the same electoral district.

Sixteen P4s competed for 10 DPR seats in East Java I Electoral District (Surabaya and Sidoarjo), for example, meaning internal competition among 10 candidates in each P4, and competition among 160 candidates from 16 different P4s, in the Electoral District I. If competition among DPR and DPRD members no longer took place among P4s, but among internal parties, the two forms of facilitation to P4s clearly did not contribute to creating fair competition. If these observations are correct, the two facilities provided by the KPU from APBN funds would be redundant.

If competition in the DPR and DPRD elections took place among candidates from the same party and in the same electoral district, what is worth questioning is what could each candidate do to influence voters.

If competition in the DPR and DPRD elections took place among candidates from the same party and in the same electoral district, what is worth questioning is what could each candidate do to influence voters. Observing the provisions of Article 274 Paragraph (1) Letter b, what every candidate for the DPR and DPRD had to convey was the party\'s vision, mission, and program.

Because competing (must be more prominent than other candidates), it can be assumed that the campaign materials delivered by each candidate is necessarily different, maybe not even in the form of campaign materials, but in material form (money and/or basic needs).

KOMPAS/BAHANA PATRIA GUPTA

Ramlan Surbakti

If inter-candidate competition in the form of "competition to offer more materials" to voters, inter-candidate competition in P4 in the same electoral district will not only create hostility among party cadres (fading the party cohesiveness), but also weaken political parties.

Will the proportional electoral system continue?

Ramlan Surbakti, Professor of Comparative Politics, Airlangga University, Surabaya; member, Indonesian Academy of Sciences